Prologues to the Apostolikon

[Stephan Huller]

where BeDuhn questions the title "Apostolikon."

But I know the sources. I know the only place that uses this word is De Recta in Deum Fide and (if I remember correctly) Adamantius is the source of both references. I will check.

[Stephan Huller]

Now I see the references. It always seemed to me that 'Apostolic' was used by both sides to denote the writings of the apostle:

AD. I will show that the Apostle himself bears witness to Mark and Luke.
MEG. I do not accept your spurious Apostolicon28.
AD. Produce your Apostolicon — even though it is much mutilated29 — 807a and I will prove that Mark and Luke worked with Paul.
MEG. Prove it.
AD. I read at the end of Paul's letter to the Colossians: "Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoners," he says "sends you greetings; also Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received instructions that he may come to you; receive him ..."

and again:

AD. Would you be convinced by the Apostle?
824a MK. I would be convinced by my Apostolicon.
AD. I have your Apostolicon here, and I read: "God will judge the secrets of men through Jesus Christ, according to my Gospel"

I was always struck by a few things. Megethius refers to the Catholic text by the Apostolikon. Adamantius refers to the Marcionite text as an Apostolikon. It would seem that wherever the text was written it was common to refer to the body of letters as the apostolic - something we see already in Irenaeus.

Everyone agrees that what survives is not the original Dialogue. Instead we have a much adulterated version of something of an unknown provenance. My suspicion is that the second reference (as is often the case in the narrative) Adamantius cited the Marcionite version of the Pauline epistle and a later editor added the artificial bit about 'bring me your Apostolicon.' In another section where Adamantius combats Marinus said to be a follower of another heretic Megethius miraculously 'returns' to frame a Marcionite reading that is accepted by both sides in the debate.

So when we go back to the first reference we see that Adamantius is likely citing from his Apostolicon but the sound of 'Apostolikon' was weird to the later editors.

[Stephan Huller]

It has long been argued that the Dialogues were produced in Edessa or somewhere in the East (cf. Pretty p. 17). I think this is true but then it is interesting to note that large sections of the text must have been added by a later editor. The only gospel used in Edessa at this time was the Diatessaron. Contemporary Christians hadn't a clue who 'Matthew,' 'Mark,' 'Luke' and 'John' were. So what do we do with the Apostolicon reference here? Clearly IF the text was from Edessa THEN they could have been arguing about M, M, L and J and Paul's knowledge of these folks. Indeed the argument is weird to begin with. I have never seen another Church Father argue this.

As I noted already, it was Irenaeus's position that Mark wrote after Peter finished preaching and Luke after Paul's preaching ended. But now the text of De Recta in Deum Fide in a very strange and sudden argument has Megethius suddenly announce:

b 5 MEG. I can prove that the Gospels are spurious24.
AD. What proofs have you to offer that this is so?
MEG. I will show from the Gospels themselves that they are spurious.
AD. Will you agree if I show from the Gospels that they are not fabrications?
MEG. MEG. I will agree if you prove it. First state the names of the Gospel writers.
AD. The disciples of Christ wrote them: John and Matthew; Mark and Luke.
MEG. Christ did not have Mark and Luke as disciples, so you and your party are convicted of producing spurious writings. Why is it that the disciples whose names are recorded in the Gospel did not write, while men who were not disciples did? Who is Luke? Who is Mark? You are therefore convicted of bringing forward names not recorded in the Scriptures.
EUTR. If Christ had disciples, would He not have committed the work to them rather than to men who were not disciples? Something seems wrong here. The disciples themselves ought rather to have been entrusted with the task.
AD. These men are also disciples of Christ.
MEG. Let the Gospel be read, and you will find that their names are not recorded.
EUTR. Let it be read.
AD. The names of the twelve apostles have been read, but not of the seventy-two.
EUTR. How many apostles had Christ ?
AD. First he sent out twelve and, after that, seventy-two to preach the gospel. Therefore, Mark and Luke, who are among the seventy-two, preached the gospel together with Paul the apostle.
MEG: It is impossible that these [two] ever saw Paul.

As noted above, in Edessa these texts and 'evangelists' were unknown as a group of four. But the idea that Mark was one of the 72 is also unknown before Adamantius.

As Pretty notes in his translation the section is a complete break from what came before it -

At this point Megethius introduces his next argument: that there are not four Gospels, but one. The transition is somewhat abrupt. The Latin translator must have felt this, for he makes Megethius say, "This conclusion (i.e., the judgement of Eutropius) is reached by argumentation, but 1 want to prove what I say from the Gospel writings. But I will first show that the Gospels which you people read are false." As the above passage down to the words "Gospel writings" is absent from the Greek MSS, Bakhuyzen rightly deletes it as unoriginal. Nevertheless it serves to highlight what was already been said, that the writer of the Dialogue has produced a work which, though valuable as it is in other ways, sometimes suffers from a lack of cohesion as one argument ends and another begins.

So what was being argued before the four gospel section began? A discussion about the Marcionite understanding of three gods in heaven the last words come from the judge:

Eutropius: "You said that the Good God is the strongest, and further, that He does not desire them to exist. How can this be possible? If He is Himself the strongest, and does not desire them to exist yet they do exist (as you claim), either He desires them to (as you claim), either He desires them to exist. or He cannot destroy them, or He is ignorant of their existence23.
b 5 MEG. I can prove that the Gospels are spurious24.
AD. What proofs have you to offer that this is so?
MEG. I will show from the ...

It would seem that a section 'proving' that Paul knew of Mark and Luke has been inserted into the original narrative. But what was original in what follows? Difficult to know for certain. But I highly suspect that the first allusion to 'apostolicon' is problematic:

AD. I will show that the Apostle himself bears witness to Mark and Luke.
MEG. I do not accept your spurious Apostolicon28.
AD. Produce your Apostolicon — even though it is much mutilated29 — 807a and I will prove that Mark and Luke worked with Paul.
MEG. Prove it.
AD. I read at the end of Paul's letter to the Colossians: "Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoners," he says "sends you greetings; also Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received instructions that he may come to you; receive him ..."

[Stephan Huller]

If I was to guess where the original seam was it would be something like - just as the Marcionites say that there are three gods (and there is really one) the Catholics say that there are four gospels (when there is really one):

6 MEG. I will demonstrate from elsewhere that the gospels are spurious. The Apostle says that there is one Gospel, but you people say that there are four. AD. There are four who preached the Gospel, but one (12) Gospel31. They proclaimed one Christ, and are in agreement. Now, if each of them had proclaimed or ...

I admit this isn't perfect. It's just a guess. It means that the Catholic representative believed in four gospels and makes it unlikely that he represented 'Edessa' or the East. Maybe the text wasn't written in the East. But the previous statement was IMO likely something that appeared before the insertion:

Meg. These are philosophical arguments. For I show from the scriptures that there are three principals.

Ad. These three principals which you speak of : do you assert that they are equal, or do they differ from one another?

Meg. God forbid! They are not equal.

Ad. So which of them is superior?

Meg. The supreme Good God is by far the most eminent.

Ad. So the Supreme has subjected those beneath him, or not?

Meg. He has subjected them.

Ad. So the Will of the Supreme, concerning those who are beneath him, is to control those who control others?

Meg. It is not according to his Will that the evil ones devise. In fact, Christ came and conquered the devil, and he emptied the Creator's law in decrees and dogmas.

Ad. So do these have their being in accordance to the purpose of the Good God?

Meg. No.

Ad. (If they are actually contrary to his purpose, why does he not prevail to do away with them altogether?) Or is he himself ignorant of who they are ?

Meg. He is not ignorant.

Eutr. You assert that the Good God is powerful. [But] you also claim that they are not in accordance to his purpose. So what is gained consequentially? For if he himself is powerful and everything is not according to his will, they are in any event, according to your assertion, or he is willing the same even by which reason things are, or he cannot purpose to even do away with them, or it is because he is ignorant. ...

Meg.The Apostle says that there is one Gospel, but you people say that there are four.

Adam. There are four who preached the Gospel, but one Gospel. They proclaimed one Christ, and are in agreement. Now, if each of them had proclaimed or preached a different Christ, you would be right, but if the four speak of one Christ there are no longer four Gospels but one.

Meg. The Apostle doesn't say, "according to my gospels", but "according to my gospel". You see how he speaks of one. And a second time he says "if anyone should proclaim to you a different gospel, let him be accursed" (Gal.1:9?). How is it that you speak of four?

Ad. The Gospel which we speak is one, but there are four evangelists.

Meg. Neither are there four evangelists, for the Apostle says (Gal.1:7) : "which is not another but there are some that trouble you and would divert (you) unto a different gospel of Christ."

Ad. Paul speaks of there being a plurality of evangelists, how is it that you say there is only one?

Meg. He does not speak of many evangelists.

[Peter Kirby]

Galatians are Greeks.

What's interesting is that this just seems wrong. Galatians were located east of the Roman province of Asia, in modern-day central Turkey. The Galatians were, since around 270 BC, a Celtic people from Gaul. They continued to speak a language like the one in France as late as Jerome.

Is this ignorance? Or is this an implicit recognition of what is known in academic tradition as the "South Galatian" theory, i.e., that the letters were to the southern parts of Galatia (that were still more Hellenized)?

Also for the first time today I wondered whether "Antioch" in Galatians refers to Pisidian Antioch or its bigger brother (the half-million city of Antioch) to the southeast. Given the fact that "Pisidian Antioch" is indeed in Galatia, it might actually make more sense.